This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholar Works atHarding. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tenor of Our Times by anauthorized editor of Scholar Works at Harding. For more information,please contact scholarworks@harding.edu.ANDREAS BODENSTEIN VON KARLSTADT AND MARTIN LUTHER: ITS COMPLICATED

By Stryder Matthews

The Reformation was undoubtedly a period of great tumult. It was

more surprising when two individuals, who were so closely connected, whoseemed to have had similar theological backgrounds and were in fact allies fromthe start fought in a grand and vehement manner. Andreas Bodenstein vonKarlstadt and Martin Luther were these such men. The divide between these twowas primarily a result of Luthers consistent misunderstanding of Karlstadt andhis conservative shift upon his return to Wittenberg in 1522. Though the mendisagreed over issues such as the practice of the Eucharist, the method ofsalvation, the manner in which God works, and a vast number of minor points,none were primarily responsible for their divide. Rather, circumstantial andhistorical difficulties, particularly the German Peasants War, combined withLuthers attempts to moderate the path of reform, were the cause of theircomplicated and harsh relationship. The understanding of the Karlstadt-Luther debate forwarded in thispaper stands in opposition to the contention of historian Ronald J. Sider inKarlstadts Battle with Luther: Documents in a Liberal-Radical Debate. Heframed Luther and Karlstadt in liberal-radical terms. He emphasized the primacyof strategic debate and attempts to amalgamate many theological disputes asbeing, fundamentally, strategic. 1 Embedded in this understanding of theKarlstadt-Luther relationship was that Karlstadt had to be a radical reformerwhile Luther was liberal. Sider did attempt to soften the strict view of Karlstadtas a radical reformer which had been present within most historiography,however, Karlstadt fell under that umbrella nonetheless. Essentially, the idea ofa Radical Reformer was a strict dismissal of authority in favor of moreabsolute adherence to some given doctrine, i.e. Mntzer in his upheaval of socialorder for the sake of bringing about ecclesiastical change. In contrast to theradical reformer was the conservative who generally sought to enact change bymeans of the system in place, i.e. Erasmus who pursued improvement within theCatholic Church as opposed to outside of it. Additionally, the liberal reformergenerally attempted to create change without the upheaval of a system but byaltering it significantly. The liberal title fit Karlstadt who considerably changed

the actions of the Church without abolishing the connection to the CatholicChurch entirely. In light of this, Karlstadt was certainly liberal. In 1524,Karlstadt penned his doctrine of change so to speak: Whether One ShouldProceed Slowly, and Avoid Offending the Weak in Matters that Concern GodsWill. His answer to this question was a strict no. This came about as a result ofLuthers attempts to moderate the many changes in Wittenberg during hisabsence. Karlstadt did, however, enact one radical reform. In line with his new theology, on January 1, 1522 Karlstadt led a mass with all partaking of the wine in addition to the bread. 2 Previously, the laity took only the bread while the clergy took both. He even spoke the mass in German and offered the bread and the cup to the laity themselves, letting them take hold of it in their occasionally shaky hands. Nervousness and tension mounted in this event where Karlstadt in the 1540s apparently even one man dropped his waferand was too terror-stricken to pick it up. 3 The sacrosanct status of the Eucharistmade such a slip-up absolutely horrifying. This was nothing new, however,since as early as 1520 Luther himself had called for these exact reforms (thosebeing the use of German and the cup being given also to the laity). 4 Also in1522, Karlstadt further attacked images and ordained a sort of iconoclasm. It isgood, necessary, laudable, and godly to do away with [images], 5 and heenforced this reform consistently within Wittenberg. At the same time, a general unease throughout Saxony arose alongsideKarlstadts developments, accompanied by rioting and occasional violence.Although Wittenberg was not a hotbed of such activity, Frederick the Wiseconsidered it wise to bring Luther back. 6 Upon Luthers return he quickly

Essential Carlstadt: Fifteen Tracts, 102.

preached eight sermons in an attempt to stem the tide of radicalism that hadgrown within Wittenberg. He spoke of having patience with [our brothers]weakness and help him bear it, 7 and espoused an intent to talk and reach mansears in these matters, but only to talk, giving free course to the Word and notadd[ing] our works to it. 8 He essentially sought to prod men with his words inthe hope of opening their hearts to the work of God but not to force upon themcertain actions, as he saw outward acts to have little prescriptive benefit. To thusact as Karlstadt had was to impede the reformation of the heart, and fail to trulypierce the core of the issue and instead push away and attempt to do what onlyGod can do. This rebuttal displayed a crucial difference in their understanding offaith formation and showed a marked conservative shift in Luthers path toreform, seeking change within the church as it was through conviction, notsystemic change. After 1524, there was little chance for reconciliation of thesereformers further actions. Karlstadt unequivocally stated each one should dowhat God commands, even if the whole world hesitates and does not want tofollow. 9 He continued; again, may I blaspheme God as long as the others donot stop blaspheming? 10 He even attacked Luthers idea of brotherly love asjustification for patience as equivalent to failing to take a knife from a child.Their love is like the love of a crazy mother who allows her children to go theirown way and to end on the gallows. 11 His opposition was consistentlyvehement, displaying a deep-seated conviction and fear of all that he perceivedto be against God. He denied any distinction between what was required andwhat was good for an individual, which Luther put forward in his EightSermons. 12 Karlstadt saw all of these acts as absolutely necessary for thepreservation of the soul. This split was deeply rooted and theologicallymotivated despite being technically about strategy. Even more so, Luther wasshifting to a far more conservative strategy of gradual change, while Karlstadtstuck to a liberal mode of reform.

7 Martin Luther, The First Sermon, March 9, 1522, Invocavit Sunday, in

Eight Sermons at Wittenberg, in Karlstadts Battle with Luther, 19.

8 Martin Luther, The Second Sermon, March 10, 1522, Monday after

Invocavit, in Eight Sermons at Wittenberg, in Karlstadts Battle with Luther, 22.

The Radical Reformation, 52.

Invocavit, in Eight Sermons at Wittenberg, in Karlstadts Battle with Luther, 22.

50Tenor of Our Times

A primary issue between Luther and Karlstadt was the handling of theHoly Eucharist. The Catholic position was preoccupied with the Eucharist asthe essence of stability of social order and of dominant ideology, 13 and wasever important which perhaps can help to explain why these discussions were soabsolutely inflamed. The theology of the Catholic Eucharist essentially wastransubstantiation, which ascribed to the bread and the wine the real presence ofChrist. A genuine miracle occurred, and the bread and wine were literallytransformed. This also entailed a result which Karlstadt, particularly, attacked.With the doctrine of transubstantiation and the ever-growing importance of thissacrament, the wine was no longer given to the laity for fear of spilling andpotentially trampling upon the literal blood of Christ. 14 As previously noted,Karlstadt acted quickly to begin giving the wine to the laity as well. Karlstadt argued against the current papal position and considered itbeyond repair: In sum, everything is perverted: word, manner, work, fruit, anduse of the mass. 15 He intended to scrap the custom and instead sought theplace where [the sacrament] springs from the ground. 16 What then was thissource according to Karlstadt? Early on in 1521, while Luther was still in hidingafter his close call at the Diet of Worms, Karlstadt enacted the first EvangelicalEucharist. His sermon revealed his theology and he declared faith makesGods Word useful, 17 affirmed faith alone makes us holy and righteous, 18and strongly emphasized throughout the power of the sacrament to forgivesins. 19 At this time was Luther justified in his later opposition to Karlstadt?Perhaps on one point. Karlstadt did attack oral confession in a somewhat

Signs in General and What they Effect and Signify, Those Who Receive Both Forms areNot Bohemians or Heretics but Evangelical Christians, in The Eucharistic Pamphlets ofAndreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 51. 17 Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, A Sermon of Andreas Bodenstein von

Karlstadt at Wittenberg Concerning the Reception of the Holy Sacrament, in Karlstadts

Battle with Luther, 11. 18 Ibid, 8. 19 Ibid, 7-15.

51Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt and Martin Luther: Its Complicated

surprisingly vitriolic manner. It is nothing other than the devils trick and theAntichrists hovel when the word of the cup does not carry as much weight withone as the invented form of a miserable priest [oral confession]. 20 AfterLuthers return he preached on this particular point and essentially reached theconclusion that confession was far from an abominable thing. Though he wouldnot compel any individual into it, neither would he take it from anyone. 21However, this is an ancillary point as Luther never engaged Karlstadt on thequestion of confession though it could have reinforced Luthers disagreementwith Karlstadt. Onto this initial conception of the Eucharist, what was their point ofcontention? Luthers theology on this point was certifiably difficult to trulyunearth but perhaps with a few major points, a workable outline can be created.For one, he emphasized the power of the Word of Institution. Who is worthy toreceive the sacrament? Those who are moved by the Word to believe thesacraments promises. 22 In this point there did not seem to be significantdifferences. Worthiness as derived from understanding and belief was directlywhat Karlstadt discussed. His mentions of faith alone also find reverberance inLuthers own theology. The doctrine of justification is nothing else thanfaith, 23 and this doctrine of justification was the Eucharist and its use. By 1522,there was no significant and apparent difference in their actions or theology,except in Luthers growing concern over the perceived radicalism ofWittenberg. Over time, however, divergence did begin to occur. Luther is wellknown for his consideration of the Eucharist as consubstantiation. He believedin the universal God, existing in all areas at all times, but considered thesacrament a time when Christ is especially concentrated in the Eucharist, 24although the bread and wine continue to exist in tandem. Here Karlstadt hadsome genuine divergences from Luther. This distinction was most apparent in1524 with his tract of the Misuse of the Lords Bread and Cup. In this, Karlstadt

Fortress Press, 1966), 225.

24 Chris Thornhill, German Political Philosophy: The Metaphysics of Law,

(London: Routledge, 2006), 38.

52Tenor of Our Times

distinguished the sacrament and the body of Christ as two wholly distinctelements, purporting the sacrament not as the object of salvation, but rather thevehicle of remembrance of this salvation. It was a symbolic Eucharist, onewhich did not save but pointed to what saves, and was in this way not the bodyand blood of Christ, nor was there anything spiritually imbibed in the bread andwine. 25 This was a clear and marked distinction between Luther and Karlstadt,and on this point their debate grew vehement. After this tract and subsequentwritings on the Eucharist by Karlstadt, Luther, in 1525, penned a letter whichtruly showed the depth of their divide. Doctor Andreas Karlstadt has desertedus, and on top of that has become our worst enemy. 26 This rift was devastatingtowards their already tenuous relationship. The Eucharistic conflict, however, was not limited to Karlstadt andLuther but appeared throughout the Reformation period as a common theme.Luther later had a shouting match at Marburg with Zwingli in 1529, whereinthe argument was over the Eucharist as purely symbolic or still as a genuinepiece of Christs body and blood. 27 This issue even brought in Martin Bucer, acontemporary Reformer, who was relatively prolific in his attempts to subduethe issue and had organized the Marburg Colloquy just mentioned. Bucer wasfar less concerned with the matter, saying, leave disputing, love one another,until you become sanctified. 28 The fight between transubstantiation,consubstantiation, or symbolic Eucharist in its many forms was central to theReformation. Luther and Karlstadt existed in a much wider conflict that was afundamental theological sticking point for many reformers and thus begat heateddebate all across the Reformation. Although Karlstadt was intensely involved in the Eucharist debate,peculiar to him was his frequent admonition of the laity and his identificationwith them, although in a more protective sense. He viewed himself as the

the Lords Bread and Cup Whether Faith in the Sacrament Forgives Sin; and Whether theSacrament is an Arrabo or Pledge of the Forgiveness of Sin. Exegesis of the EleventhChapter of the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Concerning the Lords Supper, inKarlstadts Battle with Luther, 74-91. 26 Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and

Cambridge University Press, 2006): 65.

53Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt and Martin Luther: Its Complicated

shepherd, angrily and lovingly concerned for his sheep. 29 Neil R. Leroux, inconsidering the rhetoric of Karlstadts Evangelical Mass described Karlstadtsrole as the peoples prophet, his turn of phrase painting him in a role which isof the people and in assistance rather than on the outside. 30 It was perhaps nosurprise that he was considered to be in some way culpable for the PeasantRevolts. The initial indictment of this activity came from Luther himself andwas a good exemplar of how their relationship played out. Luther often spoke ofthe rebellious spirit of Mntzer and Karlstadt alike which seemed to have beenthe primary factor leading up to the Confrontation at the Black Bear Inn. Thisincident occurred shortly after Luthers Eight Sermons at Wittenberg in whichLuther repeatedly indicted Karlstadt and his teachings. Soon after they agreed tomeet at the Black Bear for a brief discussion in which not much was said butquite a few feelings were hurt. Thankfully, an anonymous individual tookconsistent notes on the event and provided a compelling account. 31 Karlstadtbegan: For today in your sermon, Mr. Doctor [Luther], you attacked mesomewhat severely and you interwove me in one number and work with theriotous murdering spirits, as you call them. 32 This was a clear refusal byKarlstadt to be thought of in tandem with Mntzer and the Peasant Revolts. Luthers amalgamating of his many opponents in one broad stroke wasnot peculiar to Karlstadt, rather, it was a consistent black mark on Luthersactions. He frequently attacked all his opponents in one motion displaying anodd sort of metaphysical assumption about them. Luther had a notion that all hisopponents were under the same satanic spirit, which speaks to his belief that hewas engaged in a spiritual struggle against the devils work. This enabled him todecry of the spirit of his opponents rather than in engaging their arguments morespecifically. 33 This issue displayed prominently in his attacks on Karlstadtparticularly when combining his position with the rebellious spirit of Mntzer. Karlstadt dealt directly with the accusations of his involvement withAllstedt at length in his Apology by Dr. Andreas Carlstadt Regarding the False

Evangelical Mass, Church History 72, no. 1 (March 2003): 135.

Dr. Martin Luther at Jena, and How They Have Decided to Write against Each Other, inKarlstadts Battle with Luther: Documents in a Liberal-Radical Debate, 40. 33 Mark U. Edwards, Luther and the False Brethren, (Stanford: Stanford

University Press, 1975), 58-59.

54Tenor of Our Times

Charge of Insurrection which has Unjustly Been Made against Him; Allstedthaving been the town in which Thomas Mntzers peasant uprisings beganwhich so disconcerted Luther and many other reformers. He had been accusedof the uprising in Allstedt and of several others, as if [he] had been the leaderand captain of the rebellious peasants. 34 Within this he explained thecircumstances of his life during these revolts and attempted to prove hisinnocence. He also discussed his revilement at Mntzer. How I cursedMntzers folly and made known what disaster would come of it and that thegospel would suffer irreparable damage ! 35 He decried Mntzer on allaccounts, considering his work a folly, although not without a little grief havingpreferred to say nothing ill towards a brother. This assessment could, however,be colored by Karlstadt having been at Luthers mercy at this point, the apologybeing written in 1525. Turning back a brief moment in time to 1524, Karlstadt wrote a letter toAllstedt, Mntzers center of unrest, rebuking his attempts to forge some sort ofalliance on behalf of the congregation of Orlamnde. Within it, Karlstadtexplicitly states we cannot help you with armed resistance, 36 dismissing anyattempts to forge some sort of violent pact. Karlstadt demonstrates, despite hisfrequent iconoclasm and disdain of moving slowly, it was not to be donethrough armed resistance. He cited Jesus command to Peter to sheath his sword(Matthew 26:52), and insisted the people of Allstedt seek not to fight with armsbut with faith, prayer, and deference to God and find defense through thosemeans. 37 This absolute resistance to extreme methods of religious changedemonstrated the strength of Karlstadts will in opposing highly radical paths ofreformation. Luther was undoubtedly mistaken in his ascribing a rebellious spiritto Karlstadt, much more so in having believed he was in some way complicit inMntzers rebellion. Their disputes were often obfuscated by the tumult of theday. However, it does not follow that the confusion of the day completelyundermined Karlstadt and Luthers mutual understanding. These men had

34 Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt, Apology by Dr. Andreas Carlstadt

Regarding the False Charge of Insurrection Which Has Unjustly Been Made AgainstHim, in The Essential Carlstadt: Fifteen Tracts, 379. 35Ibid, 380. 36 Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt, Letter from the Community in

Orlamnde to the People of Allstedt, in The Radical Reformation, ed. by Michael G.

Orlamnde to the People of Allstedt, in The Radical Reformation, 33-34.

55Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt and Martin Luther: Its Complicated

known each other well and were familiar with each others theologies. Ifanything, Luthers misunderstanding of Karlstadts position among radicalsbetrays his failure to fully understand his strategy. If Luther could not ascertainwhy it would be inconsistent for Karlstadt to support the Peasant Revolts, and itcertainly would have been, strategy could not have been central to their debate.It was only central insofar as Luther misunderstood Karlstadt. The final question arises yet again: over what did these two relativelysimilar reformers oppose each other? Ultimately, it was less about the what andmore about the why. The various issues Karlstadt and Luther disagreed on wererelatively minimal and, barring the Eucharist, were far more similar thanopposed. The largest issue at hand was Luthers conservative shift upon hisreturn to Wittenberg. Further than that, however, was an issue which Richard A.Beinert described as a mutual rejection of each others views concerning theprocess of faith formation, as he emphasized their understanding of theirreform in the context of shaping the basic pattern of Christian spirituality. 38Thus, they disagreed on their basic conception of what reform ought to mean inpractice. Beyond this, however, was the broader issue of Luther fundamentallymisunderstanding Karlstadts relationship with the German Peasants War. Assuch, the relationship between Luther and Karlstadt can only be characterized ascomplicated. It was two men within a whirlwind of change, doubt, and concernover the very salvation of mans soul mixed with fear of the Catholic Churchand the radicalized peasantry.